Williams, Dimond & Co.

WILLIAMS, DIMOND & CO. 71 We are of the opinion that these three employees have sufficient interests in common with other employees in the unit to vote in the election. 2 [Text of Direction of Election 13 omitted from publication in this volume.] ' Cf. Cherry and Webb Company, Providence, 93 NLRB 9. While Harold Cohen is a -cousin of Herman Cohen, the Employer's secretary, this relationship does not preclude his Inclusion in the unit or render him ineligible to vote. Clelland Bub Linea, Inc., 85 NLRB 306. 23 Following charges filed by Intervenor in Case No. 3-CA-579, a settlement agreement was executed. The settlement agreement provides for the posting of notices until approxi- mately October 8, 1952, by the Employer. It is our intention by this direction that the Regional Director conduct the election as early as possible after the expiration of the -posting period under the settlement agreement. WILLIAMS, DIMOND & Co. and LOCAL 253, DISTRIBUTIVE, PROCESSING AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC- 2584. October 22,1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman H. Greer, hearing -officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of office clerical employees located at the Employer's dock facilities in Wilmington, California. The Employer contends that the unit should also include the office clerical employees in its Los Angeles, California, office. The Employer operates a steamship agency and terminal facilities on the west coast. The present petition concerns only the Los Angeles district which includes the Employer's main office, located in the Los Angeles business district, and its dock facilities 21 miles away at Wil- a The hearing officer properly refused to permit the Employer to inquire into the question of whether the Petitioner had complied with the filing requirements of the Act, as this is an administrative matter to be determined by the Board and is not litigable by the parties. Magnolia Lumber Corporation, 88 NLRB 161. 101 NLRB No. 15. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD inington, California. Until January 1, 1949, practically all of the Employer's office staff worked in the Los Angeles office. At that time, because the great distance between the downtown office and the dock was proving burdensome to its customers, the Employer transferred most of its office staff to the dock in Wilmington.2 Although all the Los Angeles operations are under the general super- vision of a district manager, the Wilmington office is under the imme- diate supervision of a port superintendent who has independent authority to hire and discharge employees. The 2 offices perform different functions. The Los Angeles office is primarily responsible for handling traffic, including bookings of freight and passengers, rates, and solicitation of customers. The Wilmington office handles all accounting, billing, and payroll functions, claims, and all matters pertaining to work at the terminal. There are 27 office clerical employees at Wilmington and 7 at Los Angeles.3 In view of the 21 mile distance between the Wilmington and Los Angeles offices, the separate supervision of the Wilmington office, the absence of a bargaining history on a two-office basis, and the fact that no labor organization seeks to represent both offices in a single unit, we believe that an office unit restricted to the Wilmington dock facil- ities is appropriate 4 We find that all office clerical employees at the Employer's dock facilities, Berth 178, Wilmington, California, including the account- ant,5 but excluding the port purser, the purchasing clerk's marine clerks,' confidential employees," watchmen, and supervisors 9 as de- fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] , The Employer contends that this transfer was experimental and must be considered temporary . As almost 4 years have now elapsed , we cannot subscribe to this view, especially as the record shows that the Employer has no plans to change the present arrangement. 3In addition , there are five solicitors (freight agents ) connected with the Los Angeles office. The primary function of the solicitors is to call on the trade to secure business, and they spend most of their time outside the office. * See Stow and Davis Furniture Co., 92 NLRB 80; Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., 12 NLRB 1333. 5 This employee is included in the unit, contrary to the contention of the Petitioner, as it appears he is merely a bookkeeper engaged in the performance of routine clerical functions ' The purchasing clerk exercises independent judgment in making purchases of mer- chandise for the account of the Employer . He is properly excluded from the unit. Federal Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc, 92 NLRB 1395, 1399; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8, 14. 7 These employees, who check cargo to be loaded on vessels, are represented by another labor organization, and the parties agreed to their exclusion from the unit. 8 Excluded in this category is the secretary to the port superintendent. 9 Excluded as supervisors are the port superintendent, office manager , chief clerk, pier agent, claim agent, and special agent.